JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petitions have been filed by Pradeep Kumar, Prithvi Raj and Dharampal all the three sons of Shri Banwari Lal Bishnoi and Banwari Lal Bishnoi himself, who were defendants in the suit filed by Amandeep s/o Shri Raja Ram, who is brother of plaintiff, Bhanwarlal Bishnoi, against the rejection of their application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC by the learned trial court of the Senior Civil Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Civil Suit No.11/2013 (558/2014) - Amandeep & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. by the impugned order dated 11.05.2015 , with the following observations:- " cgl izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lh0ih0lh0 ds nkSjku vf/koDrk izfroknh }kjk vius izkFkZuk&i= ds dFkuksa dh iqujko'fRr djrs gq;s dFku fd;k x;k fd oknh }kjk gLrxr okn LoxhZ; irjke dh olh;r dks voS/k] 'kwU; ,oa izHkkoghu ?kksf"kr djokdj mDr lEifRr dk caVokjk ds vuqrks"k gsrq is'k fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa oknh ds firk jktkjke ds thfor jgrs gq;s oknh dks dkuwuu nkok izLrqr djus dk dksbZ yksdlLVs.MkbZ gkfly ugha gS o uk gh mls dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu gksrk gSA vr% okn dkj.k izkIr ugha gksus ds dkj.k oknh dk okn [kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA [k.Mu esa vf/koDrk oknh dk dFku gS fd izfroknh }kjk ftu vk/kkjksa dks vius izkFkZuk&i= esa mBk;k x;k gS] mDr rF; lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gSa] ftu ij dksbZ Hkh fu"d"kZ okn lk{; gh fn;k tk ldrk gSA izfroknh }kjk egt izdj.k esa nsjh ,oa my>u iSnk djus ds vk'k; ls izkFkZuk&i= is'k fd;k x;k gS tks fd dkfcys [kkfjt gSA mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lacaf/kr fof/k dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA fof/k ds lqLFkkfir fl)kUr ds vuqlkj vkns'k VII fu;e 11 lh0ih0lh0 ds izkFkZuk&i= ds vfHkopuksa dks ns[kuk vko';d gS rFkk bl laca/k esa izfroknh i{k }kjk ;g mtz fy;k x;k gS fd oknh ds firk ds thfor gksrs gq;s oknh dks okn ykus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k oknh dks okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA vkns'k VII fu;e 11 lh0ih0lh0 ds vuqlkj tgka okn&i= okn gsrq izdV ugha djrk gS] ogka okn&i= ukeatwj dj fn;k tk;sxkA Lohd'r :i ls oknh }kjk ;g okn vius nknk Lo0 irjke dh olh;r fnukad 25-2-2002 ,oa fnukad 25-3-2004 dks vius fgrksa ds foijhr voS/k] vekU;] 'kwU; ,oa izHkkoghu ?kksf"kr dj mDr lEifRr ds fojklru caVokjk djrs gq;s oknh dks mldk fgLlk fu;ekuqlkj ?kksf"kr djkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS rFkk okn&i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd mDr olh;r QthZ] irjke dh bPNk ds foijhr ,oa mudh vufHkKrk ls rS;kj dh xbZ gSA vr% okn&i= ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd oknh }kjk ;g okn bl vk/kkj ij is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS fd Lo0 irjke dks mDr olh;r djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] cfYd mDr olh;r dks QthZ o Lo0 irjke dh vufHkKrk esa rS;kj djus ds vk/kkj ij mDr olh;r dks 'kwU; ,oa izHkkoghu ?kksf"kr djkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gSA vr% bl LVst ij ;g ekuus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS fd oknh dks gLrxr okn ykus dk dksbZ yksdlLVs.MkbZ ;k okn dkj.k ugha gS rFkk ;g rF; fof/k ,oa rF; dk fefJr iz'u (Mixed question of fact and law) ftl ij dksbZ fu"d"kZ fook|d dk;e dj i{kdkjksa dh lk{; ds mijkUr gh fn;k tk ldrk gSA QyLo:i izkFkZuk&i= oknh Lohdkj djus ;ksX; u ik;s tkus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA mHk;i{kdkjuksa esa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dks izkFkZuk&i= rkjh[k 8-4-2011 ij lquk x;kA vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k la[;k 7 o 8 }kjk vius izkFkZuk&i= ds dFkuksa dh iqujko'fRr djrs gq;s dFku fd;k x;k fd oknh ,oa izfroknh ds fgr leku gS] blfy;s izfroknhx.k dks izfroknh dh Js.kh ls oknh dh Js.kh esa izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk;sA [k.Mu esa vf/koDrk izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 4 }kjk dFku fd;k x;k fd izfroknhx.k@izkFkhZx.k }kjk ;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k fd gLrxr izkFkZuk&i= fdl izko/kku ds rgr is'k fd;k x;k gS rFkk oknh dk okn dkj.k dk vk/kkj vyx gS rFkk izfroknh }kjk izkFkZuk&i= esa vyx vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS] vr% mUgsa oknh dh Js.kh esa Mkyus ls okn dh iwjh izd'fRr cny tk;sxh] vr% izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZx.k [kkfjt fd;k tk;sA mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fof/kd :i ls izfroknh dks oknh ds :i esa i{kkarj.k djus dh vuqKk rHkh nh tk ldrh gS] tc vkosnd dk dksbZ ,slk lkjoku iz'u gS tks vU; izfrokfn;ksa esa ls fdlh ds fo:) fuf'pr fd;k tkuk gS ;k izfroknh o vU; izfroknh ds fgr foijhr gSa o izfroknh o oknh ds fgr leku gS] tks bl laca/k esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknhx.k la[;k 7 o 8 dh vksj ls bdcky&nkok is'k fd;k x;k gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd oknh o izfroknhx.k ds fgr leku gS o izkFkhZx.k o izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 yxk;r 4 ds fgr foijhr gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dks izfroknh dh Js.kh esa izfrLFkkfir fd;s tkus ls nkos dh izd'fRr ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gSA QyLo:i izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izfroknh la[;k 7 o 8 dks izfroknh dh Js.kh ls oknh dh Js.kh esa izfrLFkkfir fd;s tkus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs is'k djus la'kksf/kr okn&i=@'kh"kZd okn&i= fnukad 29-5-2015 dks is'k gksA Sd/- ( v'dk jko ) ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV] jk;flaguxj] ftyk&Jhxaxkuxj " 2. The connected S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.161/2015 - Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. Amandeep & Ors. has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2015 itself allowing the transposition of defendants No.7 and 8 to be arrayed as plaintiffs. The relevant observations in this regard are quoted below for ready reference:- " mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fof/kd :i ls izfroknh dks oknh ds :i esa i{kkarj.k djus dh vuqKk rHkh nh tk ldrh gS] tc vkosnd dk dksbZ ,slk lkjoku iz'u gS tks vU; izfrokfn;ksa esa ls fdlh ds fo:) fuf'pr fd;k tkuk gS ;k izfroknh o vU; izfroknh ds fgr foijhr gSa o izfroknh o oknh ds fgr leku gS] tks bl laca/k esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknhx.k la[;k 7 o 8 dh vksj ls bdcky&nkok is'k fd;k x;k gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd oknh o izfroknhx.k ds fgr leku gS o izkFkhZx.k o izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 yxk;r 4 ds fgr foijhr gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k dks izfroknh dh Js.kh esa izfrLFkkfir fd;s tkus ls nkos dh izd'fRr ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rk gSA QyLo:i izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izfroknh la[;k 7 o 8 dks izfroknh dh Js.kh ls oknh dh Js.kh esa izfrLFkkfir fd;s tkus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkZuk&i= izkFkhZx.k Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs is'k djus la'kksf/kr okn&i=@'kh"kZd okn&i= fnukad 29-5-2015 dks is'k gksA Sd/- v'dk jko ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV] jk;flaguxj] ftyk&Jhxaxkuxj " 3. Aggrieved by this, the present revision petitions have been filed by the defendants. 4. Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners submitted that during the lifetime of his father, Raja Ram himself, Amandeep could not claim relief of partition claiming the suit property as joint family property and since such a suit was not maintainable, the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the defendants' application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. He also submitted that in the connected revision petition, the transposition of defendants as plaintiffs also clearly shows that the learned trial court is proceeding with the assumption, as if it was a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-Amandeep, and therefore, the suit not being maintainable, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed. 5. He also submitted that in the connected revision petition, the transposition of defendants as plaintiffs also clearly shows that the learned trial court is proceeding with the assumption, as if it was a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-Amandeep, and therefore, the suit not being maintainable, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC deserves to be allowed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, this Court is satisfied that both the present revision petitions filed by the defendants-petitioners are liable to be dismissed and the trial is required to be undertaken by the learned trial court on the various issues raised in the suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-Amandeep, inter alia, also seeking cancellation of the two Wills of Late Shri Pat Ram, the grandfather, which were purportedly executed in favour of Pradeep Kumar on 25.02.2002 and 25.03.2004 and the plaintiff has also claimed relief of partition of the suit property treating it as joint family property in the alternative. 6. It is obvious that unless the relief of cancellation of the Wills is granted in favour of the plaintiff, the question of partition treating the suit property as joint family property cannot arise, and therefore, the two cases and the two reliefs are joined in the present suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy that the suit filed by the son during the lifetime of father, for partition may not be maintainable, may be right, but since the cancellation of Wills is also sought, it cannot be said that the plaintiff Amandeep could not claim such a relief in the said suit, and therefore, the suit could not be thrown out at the threshold on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at the initial stage, because at this stage, the mixed questions of fact and law, which arise in the case, are required to be decided upon the evidence to be led by the parties. Similarly the transposition of the defendants No. 7 & 8 who have filed their written statement accepting the plaint averments also does not cause any prejudice to the contesting defendants, the present petitioners, Pradeep Kumar and other. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in any manner and the present revision petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in any manner and the present revision petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present revision petitions of the defendants, are dismissed. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned court below forthwith. *******